Range of motion in pro bodybuilding history

[superman704]

This is silly

[coachcalande]

I’m tired of arguing with feeble old men yelling at clouds. I bet he verbally berates the waitress when his eggs at iHop are too salty.

He will be placed on my ignore list, because he simply doesn’t bring anything to the table.

And yet…you show up in every thread I post in and read every single one of my posts. You particularly enjoyed the one about the size of my thighs.

You lack the will and discipline to put me on any ignore list- please do!

In the meantime, try learning.

[coachcalande]

Exactly, you can crap-form or cheat the hell out of any movement & progress, although sometimes more weight overall may be needed (and sometimes weight needed could even be less for certain movements/ROM depending on what you're trying to hit).

Is there an exercise thats ever been more sloppy and cheated than old school T bar rows?

[EliKoehn]

My personal take is that this follows something of an 80/20 rule. The good majority of the time, full range of motion work should be primary and confers the most benefit, but for isometry and also auxiliary lifts to assist, I see value in training a partial range in targeting a weak point.

For instance, it's not partial RoM, per se, but in my last set of deadlifts, I successfully pulled 465 x 4 after a training block which programmed a pause variation just above the knee, where I normally fail, and this set (which was a PR) hit a sticking point which was both more mild and above the usual spot, so had I only trained plain deadlifts and not aimed to refine them with an auxiliary movement, I might not have made the improvement. Also, I certainly have noticed forearm and upper back hypertrophy from just doing deadlifts, where these muscles are used isometrically. I think it's also worth mentioning that "full" range of motion has a little bit of ambiguity, but not much, IMO: for instance, the closer the bench press grip, the longer the range of motion, but a shoulder-width bench is still a completely valid serious lift, provided that you're actually bringing the bar to rest on the chest and fully extending until the hands cannot move farther away from your torso.

But from an overall hypertrophy and strength standpoint, I think training the conventional full range of motion on major lifts is the only way to go, and if someone insists on not doing that, it's automatically a red flag that they're coping and trying to protect their pride against the hard work necessary to legitimize what it spawns from.

[EiFit91]

I agree about the bone structure, I noticed that too.

If it takes much more time for connective tissue to fully adapt, it means that there is always a problem because the tissue will be one step behind the muscle.

Yup and anecdotally I never had any issues whatsoever with my legs and I am "bigger boned" in my lower body than in my upper body.

Agree on the second point, I think joint conditioning needs to be approached slowly. So for someone who has never extended their arms fully on curls, it's a stupid idea to suddenly shift from partials to full lockout on heavy weights in an angle where there's a lot of tension and probably a good idea to do the full ROM training using very light weights and high reps and slowly overloading to strengthen joints over time (that's the approach I personally take at least lol).

I don't see much of a problem with a partial ROM exercise if you have other primary exercises with full ROM.

100% agree.

About bad form, someone told me a while ago my form on cable pushdowns is wrong because I move my elbows up and down.
But I like it that way, if I keep them still, I get elbow pain. And I got into a discussion, but no "the elbows should always stay completely still"

lol that's just weirdly dogmatic. "Good form" should in my opinion be defined as form that enables a given lifter to progress while minimizing injury risk. That definition of course opens up for a subjective nightmare where BeginnerGainz and Coach can both be right at the same time though

But from an overall hypertrophy and strength standpoint, I think training the conventional full range of motion on major lifts is the only way to go, and if someone insists on not doing that, it's automatically a red flag that they're coping and trying to protect their pride against the hard work necessary to legitimize what it spawns from.

Not intending to stir the pot further but one point I thought of is that it's not always going to be obvious or agreed upon what "full range of motion" means. For instance, if an ATG squat is full ROM then everyone here is doing just partials and claiming they are training mostly with full ROM.

[EiFit91]

Difficult to say since you have many pros that train completely different and get the same results. e.g. Jay Cutler, with lots of volume, explosive and never to failure; who also looks massive, after retirement, unlike Yates or Coleman, who had their problems, from what I know.
Some will argue that it doesn't matter for them the way they train, because they use PEDs.
Some will say it doesn't really matter because there are several ways to get there: intensity, volume, something in between, tension, metabolite training - the same thing you can see on naturals.
No idea what is the best method, but I do believe that most people cannot train like Yates, they lack the mental aspect.
But most can train with high volume, because work capacity can be increased in time easier than the mental aspect.

Very interesting point about Cutler; I've seen him state that he has intentionally been careful with his joints.

Also Frank Zane comes to mind as someone who only went heavy for a limited part of his training career and he stayed in excellent shape into his 60s. Serge Nubret is another example of a pro bodybuilder who preached light training and was in great shape at 60. I don't know if I've seen examples of pro bodybuilders going the heavy route who have maintained shape like this into old age.

[jaxqen]

My personal take is that this follows something of an 80/20 rule. The good majority of the time, full range of motion work should be primary and confers the most benefit, but for isometry and also auxiliary lifts to assist, I see value in training a partial range in targeting a weak point.

For instance, it's not partial RoM, per se, but in my last set of deadlifts, I successfully pulled 465 x 4 after a training block which programmed a pause variation just above the knee, where I normally fail, and this set (which was a PR) hit a sticking point which was both more mild and above the usual spot, so had I only trained plain deadlifts and not aimed to refine them with an auxiliary movement, I might not have made the improvement. Also, I certainly have noticed forearm and upper back hypertrophy from just doing deadlifts, where these muscles are used isometrically. I think it's also worth mentioning that "full" range of motion has a little bit of ambiguity, but not much, IMO: for instance, the closer the bench press grip, the longer the range of motion, but a shoulder-width bench is still a completely valid serious lift, provided that you're actually bringing the bar to rest on the chest and fully extending until the hands cannot move farther away from your torso.

But from an overall hypertrophy and strength standpoint, I think training the conventional full range of motion on major lifts is the only way to go, and if someone insists on not doing that, it's automatically a red flag that they're coping and trying to protect their pride against the hard work necessary to legitimize what it spawns from.

I guess it depends on the purpose of the partial ROM:
- making the lift easier/ego lifting - quarter reps
- putting constant tension on the muscle - something specific to bbuilders
- training a weak spot in a lift - what you did
- doing a similar exercise, but with shorter ROM - rack pull, spoto press
- starting the exercise with a full ROM, but the weight is too heavy and you end it with a partial ROM

And yet, you can make even the conv exercises have a better ROM:
- cambered bar for bench press
- deficit deadlift
- extreme deficit barbell row - a hybrid between a Jefferson curl and a row

[BeginnerGainz]

Yup and anecdotally I never had any issues whatsoever with my legs and I am "bigger boned" in my lower body than in my upper body.

Agree on the second point, I think joint conditioning needs to be approached slowly. So for someone who has never extended their arms fully on curls, it's a stupid idea to suddenly shift from partials to full lockout on heavy weights in an angle where there's a lot of tension and probably a good idea to do the full ROM training using very light weights and high reps and slowly overloading to strengthen joints over time (that's the approach I personally take at least lol).



100% agree.



lol that's just weirdly dogmatic. "Good form" should in my opinion be defined as form that enables a given lifter to progress while minimizing injury risk. That definition of course opens up for a subjective nightmare where BeginnerGainz and Coach can both be right at the same time though



Not intending to stir the pot further but one point I thought of is that it's not always going to be obvious or agreed upon what "full range of motion" means. For instance, if an ATG squat is full ROM then everyone here is doing just partials and claiming they are training mostly with full ROM.

My definition of full ROM is relatively straightforward:

If you say you’re going to do a bench press, then you lock out each rep, don’t do a bunch of partials.

That whole “time under tension” crap needs to die a hastened death.

The only thing that has been linked to hypertrophy scientifically is mechanical tension.

Another thing that bugs me…..I never once had a problem “feeling” my chest working for full ROM presses, no need to pump some quarter reps.

I don’t even see a need for partials for “sticking points”. You know the very best way to beat those? Lift faster. You can’t have a sticking point if you accelerate through it as fast as possible.

Finally, here is some data on why “time under tension” is a HUGE nothingburger:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BwrbrcYl...d=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

[GeneralSerpant]

I mean if you're trying to work out as efficiently as possible with no concern for strength, yeah. ymmv

[coachcalande]

Cutler training with partials.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82ovWoZ1gGI


Take a look at CT Fletcher sometime as well.

[MyEgoProblem]

Let's all just remember that Gear changes a lot of things in training ...
Be it multiply canvas, singleply or pharmaceutical.

All different games to the raw natty crusade.

Joints are affected much more harshly by both types of gear for different reasons too. But the biomechanically correct thing to do is take your joints through their natural rom, they are built for this and adapt as any tissue would.. Just dont hyper extend*

Avoiding end ranges to keep tension on only limits overall workloads you can do, its likely not going to be a huge deal given the 15' of carry over from joint angle specificity - unless your sport requires specific tasks such as a solid bench, dead or jerk lockout ect

The unfortunate points to this all is....
Everything works, until it doesn't.
Everything people did works best, because n=1.
People are innately biased by their experiences.
Dunning krueger hits most of us hard at one point.

Meaning?... It doesn't matter, and nothing any of us do it actually optimal. Efficiency in training be damned if your life isn't lined up right too.

More on topic..
Partials at the bottom, full rom' accommodating resistance > partials at the top.

The bottom is the place to be if you're gonna bias one end.

*in healthy individuals with no prior acute injuries or genetic pre disposition for joint issues.

[unity]

I don’t even see a need for partials for “sticking points”. You know the very best way to beat those? Lift faster. You can’t have a sticking point if you accelerate through it as fast as possible.

Are you one of those momentum lifters? No offense intended. It's just what I envisioned after reading your statement.

I have used partial squats in the past to work on a sticking point at the bottom of my squat. I wanted to focus more on that part of the movement and get stronger there. I had success with that. Lifting faster so to speak would maybe get me through the sticking point and out of the hole, but I would not get stronger in that ROM.

[GrouchyUSMC]

Partial lifts were first popular among weightlifters when racks were introduced because it helped get past sticking points. Paul Anderson, one of the big influences that led to powerlifting, would dig a hole in his yard that he would do partial squats in, then slowly fill it up to full ROM.



You see it in weightlifting too - pulls from blocks so eventually you can pull more from the floor.



There is definitely a time and a place for partial movements - saying otherwise just means you aren't that deep into strength training yet.

For bodybuilding, I think the argument is more weight can be used and more tension on the muscles you're trying to work, so theoretically more gains. Full ROM has its place though. Tom Platz had absolutely insane quad development from his deep squatting.

[jaxqen]

https://sandcresearch.medium.com/doe...h-5bf7fc6e4b55

Reaching a more stretched position in an exercise by using a full range of motion does not always cause more hypertrophy, but it often causes greater increases in fiber length, likely because of the proportionally greater mechanical tension experienced by the passive elements of the fiber.

For a full range of motion to cause greater hypertrophy and not just greater increases in fiber length, the muscle may need to work predominantly on the descending limb of the length-tension relationship, so that the passive elements contribute substantially to total force production for the majority of the lift. A steep exercise strength curve may also help, such that the muscles are loaded very forcefully in the stretched position.

My definition of full ROM is relatively straightforward:

If you say you’re going to do a bench press, then you lock out each rep, don’t do a bunch of partials.

That whole “time under tension” crap needs to die a hastened death.

The only thing that has been linked to hypertrophy scientifically is mechanical tension.

Another thing that bugs me…..I never once had a problem “feeling” my chest working for full ROM presses, no need to pump some quarter reps.

I don’t even see a need for partials for “sticking points”. You know the very best way to beat those? Lift faster. You can’t have a sticking point if you accelerate through it as fast as possible.

Finally, here is some data on why “time under tension” is a HUGE nothingburger:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BwrbrcYl...d=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

Again, I respectfully disagree

1. Instead of bench, how about a unilateral machine/cable row/pull for lat? Some type of exercise you have posted in the past and said it's better than conventional pullups/pulldowns. Something recommended by Jake Paul, a juiced lifter. :P
With this unilateral movement, you can put your lat under tension. But you can go even further than that, with a bigger range of motion, where your shoulders rotate. You can pull further and further, because "FULL ROM BRO", until your shoulder says Stop!
It's not hyper extending, because the shoulder can take it. It is full ROM though.

2. "Lift faster" is like saying "Well, bench heavier then, problem solved".

Joints are affected much more harshly by both types of gear for different reasons too.


Meaning?... It doesn't matter, and nothing any of us do it actually optimal. Efficiency in training be damned if your life isn't lined up right too.

True
Yet, I would believe at least one single juiced pro with some integrity would say "Yes, full ROM with locking out is better for hyp, we do partials because our joints are ****ed"


True again

[coachcalande]

Google “lifters elbow”

Take note of elbow odd looking bulges and lumps, large swollen bursa….inflammation


One way to reduce this tremendously is to only lock out the final rep, obviously lock out on maxes, but the 6-15 rep stuff for sure, as a bodybuilder? little reason if any to lock an elbow. Train the muscle, not the joint.

Another option, play the ego game, pretend to be stronger than everyone else by dismissing their achievements as “not real” because you don’t like their training form.

[MyEgoProblem]

Joints and soft tissued actually DO adapt and should be trained.. Ignoring their function actually causes more issues than people used to claim helped avoid.

Locking (not explosively trying to hyper extend) joints for healthy people doesn't cause problems*

Not natural Jason gallants catch phrase of train the muscle not the joint in almost universally ridiculed by everyone who understands the body.. Sorry coach but, can't get behind that one mate.

Anyway, for anyone with tendonopathy issues

https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog...-tendinopathy/ This is your first stop!


*there is a none zero chance anything can't hurt you regardless of what you do. Straight facts.

True
Yet, I would believe at least one single juiced pro with some integrity would say "Yes, full ROM with locking out is better for hyp, we do partials because our joints are ****ed"

True again

Again, heavy gear changes everything.
Their game is genetics, tollerence. Food and putting in any hard work.

Most don't know f all tbh - just listening to almost all of them talk **** is hilarious

[DJAuto]

It's been said already in this thread - but it comes down to what works best for the individual, and based on customizing a routine / movements through experience. When I started bodybuilding - decades ago - I did full ROM for everything. Over the years, I adjusted based on what brought results and prevented injury - full ROM for some movements, and partial for others.